Reply With Quote
The stuff about settled custom I meant, too.
Our "overseas contingency operations" in Asia are likely to continue for a foreseeable decade, and probably longer.
Not at all.
Culture prepared us for it, and now it reinforces the common sense of the game, viz., the Hobbesian war of all against all.
The stuff about settled custom I meant, too.
Our "overseas contingency operations" in Asia are likely to continue for a foreseeable decade, and probably longer.
Maybe, much longer.
Custom is RARELY a good excuse for maintaining something, I find.
No excuse is needed.
Force is it's own justification, and if it makes itself the custom abroad, so much the worse for those on whom we unleash it.
And, perhaps, so much the worse for us, if the longevity of force should steel abiding resentments.
We're way past the phase of moral concern connoted by self-justification.
IMO we've nearly reached acceptance and are starting to get blase' about it.
Ha! I beg to differ. While society might be at that point, I am definitely not, and I do not plan on going quietly into the night!
No, no. I will rage against the dying of the light.
Bully on you, LNGR.
In other words the article had nothing to do with Cheney asking the CIA to not ell Congress
I thought the case was closed?
I just don't understand why Democrats are being es about this. The progam never really amounted to anything.
I think it's genetic. Any time Bush or Cheney is mentioned, they go absolutely crazy, like a rabid dog.
I just think this incident is going against Lord Obama's wishes. He has said many times that he wants to move on from the Bush administration and leave the past in the past. Besides, Lord Obama is president. The Democrats and liberals got their way. Why do they want to go back and think about evil Darth Cheney did?
Nobody can take Cheney seriously. Come on...
It's a matter of law, WC. Every President since Ford has signed on against using the CIA for assassinations abroad.
Read up on the Church Commission. I'm sure it wouldn't shock you, but it shocked the USA in the 1970's. To those who put morals above expedience, it's still shocking.
The same way you'll defend Cheney eh? Projection, thy name is WC!
Because it was immoral? Because we probably shouldn't go through with a policy that we think it's ok to assassinate people, at the LEAST not overtly ok it? Because I dislike the executive hoarding power? Those are some reasons.
Well, if you can show me something he actually did wrong with real facts, I'm all ears. Until then, I'll continue to spit at unsubstantiated propaganda, unnamed sources, quotes out of context, etc.The same way you'll defend Cheney eh? Projection, thy name is WC!
I hope you are aware of the level of slander liberals wage against republicans.
Technically, Cheney and the CIA didn't do anything wrong. I mean if you go by the National Security Act of 1947, they weren't obligated to inform Congress about the program in their situation.
The people that are ing about this are the same people that believe all of the terrorists at Gitmo should be transported to America and held in America or even worse released because they are innocent and did nothing wrong. Besides if your country keeps you safe, why should you give a how they do it?
If that was the case, VP Cheney needn't have ordered the CIA to remain silent. That he did suggests the CIA didn't think notification was optional.
Strawman; ad hominem; irrelevant.
Question begging. The program was never pursued to execution, so the argument that it kept us safe is null.
Why should we give a ?
Some people still care more about morals and something called checks and balances. Allowing power to eliminate its enemies unchecked and unsupervised is a mighty temptation to immoral pols, and it sets a bad example for other countries.
To enlarge official power in the name of safety may impinge on liberty. Between safety and liberty I pick liberty. Every time. It's worth dying for IMO.
Cowards and simps pick safety, because to them, nothing is worth dying for.
Some people in America and around the world care way too much about government and politics. Seriously, why get worked up over something that was/is out of your control? You guys are busting Cheney's balls for nothing. He and the CIA weren't required to notify Congress about the in progam that really didn't exist when you think about. The progam was just on paper. It never got off the ground from what I've heard and read. Why about something that didn't even happen? Besides, terrorists deserve to be hunted and killed. They're animals that have nothing better to do than destroy families, countries, cities, and human beings. If you're trying to hijack a plane or blow up some building, you deserve to get ed up by a bad-ass assassin.
Hi, I'm a hypcrite.
Sincerely, Wild Cobra..
Then why did Cheney have to order te CIA to be silent? If the CIA had every right to remain silent, it makes no sense that Cheney had to order them to shut up.
Because it may be illegal; because some people still believe in limited government and coequal branches.The progam was just on paper. It never got off the ground from what I've heard and read. Why about something that didn't even happen?
If the executive branch was intended to have unchecked and unlimited power to ward off all dangers, it would have been spelled out in the Cons ution. Happily, this is not the case.
If we are talking about terrorists I agree, though it is more consonant with our traditional values and our system of justice to bring them to trial. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.Besides, terrorists deserve to be hunted and killed. They're animals that have nothing better to do than destroy families, countries, cities, and human beings. If you're trying to hijack a plane or blow up some building, you deserve to get ed up by a bad-ass assassin.
Also, you seem to assume that a program that still hasn't been disclosed was limited to terrorists. This assumption seems mighty generous to me. If the program was limited to terrorists and was never operational, what conceivable political harm could come from notifying Congress of the details of its conception?
The executive branch is not a source of power unto itself, at least in theory. In practice today, I'm not sure. Further, the state is not the country, but rather a representative of the country (and often a rather poor one at that). Naturally, state bungling abroad which results in some fanatics conducting attacks against the country, results in greater bungling here by the state in our lives.
Then, of course, we have those who are in favor of the state getting in the world's business but staying out of theirs at home - so long as it entails going to church in a basketball arena and doesn't involve anything which could be remotely construed as sexual or socialist, and we have those who don't want the state involved in the world's business but rather the state take care of all of our business and leave us to be content vegetables worshiping the Earth Goddess who hate ourselves for being alive.
We spent untold sums of worthless currency on schooling in this country and the citizenry can barely read, write, add, divide, and multiply. But lo, can they say that pledge!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
